Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35425853›Full record

ArticleTranslational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine2022

Step Monitor Accuracy During PostStroke Physical Therapy and Simulated Activities.

Christopher E Henderson, Lindsay Toth, Andrew Kaplan, T George Hornby

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher E HendersonDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Lindsay TothDepartment of Clinical and Applied Movement Science, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL.
Andrew KaplanDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
T George HornbyDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Indiana University School of MedicineNorthwestern University · USUniversity of North Florida · US

Funding

Locomotor Recovery and Compensation Post-strokeR01NS118009 · NINDS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Thomas George Hornby · 2021 to 2026
$2.0M
Sympathetic-somatomotor coupling in human SCIR01NS079751 · NINDS · MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY · PI HORNBY, THOMAS GEORGE, SCHMIT, BRIAN D · 2013 to 2017
$1.6M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS079751NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS118009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction/Purpose: The amount of stepping activity during rehabilitation post-stroke can predict walking outcomes, although the most accurate methods to evaluate stepping activity are uncertain with conflicting findings on available stepping monitors during walking assessments. Rehabilitation sessions also include non-stepping activities and the ability of activity monitors to differentiate these activities from stepping is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of different activity monitors worn by individuals post-stroke with variable walking speeds during clinical physical therapy (PT) and research interventions focused on walking. Methods: In Part I, 28 participants post-stroke wore a StepWatch, ActiGraph with and without a Low Frequency Extension (LFE) filter, and Fitbit on paretic and non-paretic distal shanks at or above the ankle during clinical PT or research interventions with steps simultaneously hand counted. Mean absolute percent errors were compared between limbs and tasks performed. In Part II, 12 healthy adults completed 8 walking and 9 non-walking tasks observed during clinical PT or research. Data were descriptively analyzed and used to assist interpretation of Part I results. Results: Part I results indicate most devices did not demonstrate an optimal limb configuration during research sessions focused on walking, with larger errors during clinical PT on the non-paretic limb. Using the limb that minimized errors for each device, the StepWatch had smaller errors than the ActiGraph and Fitbit (p<0.01), particularly in those who walked < 0.8 m/s. Conversely, errors from the ActiGraph-LFE demonstrated inconsistent differences in step counts between Fitbit and ActiGraph. Part II results indicate that errors observed during different stepping and non-stepping activities were often device-specific, with non-stepping tasks frequently detected as stepping. Conclusions: The StepWatch and ActiGraph-LFE had smaller errors than the Fitbit or ActiGraph, with greater errors in those walking at slower speeds. Inclusion of non-stepping activities affected step counts and should be considered when measuring stepping activity in individuals post-stroke to predict locomotor outcomes following rehabilitation.

Indexed as

accuracyphysical therapystep countstroke

Identifiers

PMID35425853
PMCPMC9004549
OpenAlexW4200323547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.